Serious Question for all the 'greenies', page 1

Serious Question for all the 'greenies', page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 8-1-2011 @ 11:03 PM by Chett

It seems to me that God/Universe/Nature whatever you want to call force that organizes things really likes life, at least on planet Terra. We find life in all sorts of places our science never expected, doing all sorts of things. Evidence for lost species apparently rather quickly replaced in their ecological niches by new ones.
Many appear to have a function in the great mosaic of life, perhaps all and we humans just haven't figured it out yet.

Bees pollinate plants helping to bring forth the fruits and feed many species.

Bacteria explodes into life to gobble methane that might be dangerous for
other things.
methane eaters

Lions chase and eat gazelle, gazelle eat grass, the grass eventually eats the
leavings of both the gazelle and the lion.

Nature appears to have designed things very well indeed.

So here is what I don't get about all the 'green' types that are so militant
to 'protect' nature.
Didn't nature also design us humans? (lets put aside all the stuff about
aliens for the moment)

I see humans with huge 'movements' to save the tigers or the polar bears or
the owls or all sorts of things, if we are supposed to by natures plan care
for the earth where is the movement to save mosquitoes or the virus that
causes smallpox (didn't we pretty much make that one go extinct?Did nature replace it with AIDS?) Did nature
leave a list for her gardeners that I just haven't seen?

Or is it possible nature actually means for humans to make changes? Could too
much carbon have gotten locked up in coal and oil and nature needed it
released to keep feeding her lovely green plants? Maybe she really wants a
warmer earth? Will that hurt humans? Likely, but so what if its for the
greater good to the universe?

Isn't it wrong of us humans to pick and choose what lives and what dies on a
global level?

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 11:38 PM by loam

reply to post by Chett

Originally posted by Chett
So here is what I don't get about all the 'green' types that are so militant
to 'protect' nature.

I suppose I'm a 'green' type as you put it, but I don't fit the complete mold as you describe it.

The primary reason to rationally manage natural resources is a self-interested one. Monkey around too dramatically with the natural world and you ensure we become toast.

Originally posted by Chett
Isn't it wrong of us humans to pick and choose what lives and what dies on a
global level?

From my perspective, theoretically, no. But the problem is most of the time we choose badly in these decisions in ways that come back to bite us in the ass.

edit on 8-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 11:39 PM by GenerationXisMarching

is it wrong to assume that we are more important that all of the other animals on the planet? course not, we wouldnt be here without them. i just think that now since we are here, and we are realizing just how invasive of a species we are, some believe we could survive some mass-extinctions so dont worry. the question they would want addressed- should everything we do be considered natural since we came from nature?

not a greeny at all, but i can see that consequences decades in the future havnt affected our choice to live in the present for the last thousand years, why would that change now?

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 11:46 PM by spacekc929

You have a really good point, and it reminds of that George Carlin stand up - the planet's fine, it's the people who are f##ked!

Because you're right, if Nature invented us, it will destroy us as well if we are messing around with it.

But here is the kicker: I do strongly believe that if the planet finds us as a threat, then it will eliminate us, and I would not be surprised if what we're doing IS harming the planet. Just because the planet made us doesn't mean everything we do is just and good for the planet; just like Marcus Aurelius spawned Commudus, the planet spawned us, and if we treat the planet like it has to be 'dominated' and like we are 'superior', the planet will destroy us. So yeah, I am a greenie, and I think we should be respecting the planet.

As for saving endangered species: if the planet likes a species that we destroy through our irresponsible actions, the planet will revive that species, but the planet won't revive us. So I'd think twice about dissing those 'greenie liberals' because I do think that what we're doing is harmful, and although clearly not permanent (the planet will eliminate us and cleanse itself in the future if we continue on this path), the planet is not happy with us right now.

edit on 1/8/2011 by spacekc929 because: added

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 11:58 PM by Chett

Thanks for the responses so far. I didn't intend to 'dis' liberal greenies, it was and remains a serious question. I wonder on what basis we decide what we should or should not not try to save? Do we have anymore 'right' to wipe out a virus than we do the TIgers?
I just feel like there should be some moral basis for the choices we are making and I don't see it.

reply posted on 9-1-2011 @ 12:19 AM by alonzo730

My experience has been that my own people the Kanienkehaka tried to live in harmony with nature, giving back when ever they took something. Where as the people that came here from Europe, were more into trying to control nature, and taking , and taking , and taking, and never giving anything back. I hear Evangelical Christians saying they don't have to be good stewards because God is going to rapture them out of here. What a cop out. All the negative things man has done to the earth that's what's causing all the earth changes, We are reaping what we've sown. I'm glad God sees everything.

reply posted on 9-1-2011 @ 12:32 AM by catwhoknowsplusone

I am a greenie and a bleeding heart.

A lot of people hate that but I don't care.

I am one of those people who hate killing anything. The only things I kill are mosquitoes and ants. (And who says I have the right to do that?)

Yes, humans have no right to say what stays and what goes, and the slaughterers (of people and animals and trees) are destroying the balance.

It is humans who have wrecked this planet, and all life on this planet will pay.

Not fair, when you think of loyal animals and innocent people.

reply posted on 9-1-2011 @ 02:20 AM by ahnggk

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone

Not fair, when you think of loyal animals and innocent people.

Unfortunately, the 'greenies' has also not done their best to convince others what they're doing is bad to our future.

No mass rallies, no road blockades, no hunger strikes, no coordinated effort on a global scale... You have to make 'non greenies' feel the direness of our situation. We're in a quite fearful situation now.

reply posted on 9-1-2011 @ 02:26 AM by catwhoknowsplusone

reply to post by ahnggk

It would make no difference, because the murderers of the planet are the people who make the decisions.

So, be prepared.

It is sad but true - the rich people do not care about anyone or anything, and the planet is dying, and they are too stupid to see that it is because of them. They will die too - so we are all equal at the end.

reply posted on 9-1-2011 @ 02:56 AM by Chett

Well I do think we humans have a right to kill, at least as much right as a lion to kill a gazelle. I ma not sure we have business messig with the evironment on a global scale ...but perhaps we do, maybe nature meas for us to do that ...how can we know the 'intent' of nature?
I am bothered by a serious lack of any real attemps to understand.

So back to the main question:
Why is it any moe right to kill off a virus than to cause the end of something like Tigers? We do the virus on purpose but make some effort to save the tigers ....either will kill us given the chance.

reply posted on 9-1-2011 @ 02:14 PM by mc_squared

reply to post by Chett

Nature is about two principles really:

One is that it is symbiotic. Everything on this planet is dependent on everything else, and although these things are in a constant state of flux - it is very important that they maintain an overall sense of balance. If you upset that too much, everything falls apart.

Two is that the system is emergent. Evolution is a survival of the fittest. Through this concept nature itself is growing as one whole - expanding it's diversity and complexity. However, because of the first principle, it is also very important that it does not grow too big beyond it's britches. In this sense nature is self-governing: if a predator gains such an advantage that it wipes out all of it's prey - then the predator also dies out.

But the moment humans developed self-consciousness, they evolved to a point where they basically now transcend nature. We are still a part of it, but we are no longer governed by the same laws. We have the free will to make our own laws.

So with great power comes great responsibility.

Us 'greenies' simply follow a principle of understanding and respecting the gravity of this situation. We have graduated from Nature in a sense, and in doing so been given the keys to the kingdom.

But if we want to continue moving forward, we must keep the system as a whole moving forward, and that means keeping it in balance as it does. So if a virus is threatening to wipe us out, then by all means we should exercise our evolutionary talents to stop the virus.

But we also have to be very careful to make sure we don't become the virus.

Right now this is exactly what we have become. Our entire economic system is literally based on the idea of greed and infinite unregulated growth. We are consuming everything around us at an unsustainable rate - and I guarantee you this is NOT "what Nature intends", because it goes completely against its core principles.

It's not really about what Nature intends anymore anyway because Nature has granted us the gift of free will to make our own decisions. We are like her teenager. But at the same time - if we don't make the right ones by respecting the principles that got us here in the first place, then we will easily have our rights revoked. Much like the predator that grows too big too fast - we will wipe ourselves out.

Nature and evolution meanwhile will just go right back to the drawing board and try to develop another species that can handle this responsibility a bit more maturely next time. Maybe dolphins will develop opposable thumbs or something...

reply posted on 11-1-2011 @ 10:23 PM by Chett

Thanks, a well thought out reply. It does make some sense. I still think man is silly to think he knows enough to make these choices.

reply posted on 11-1-2011 @ 10:36 PM by neonitus

i agree, tree huggers are very selective on what should be protected. things that flourish and revel on this planet like bacteria/disease, which is life native to this planet, everyone is happy to kill it without a second thought.
yet carnivores like pandas who chose to eat grass and never mate, are the poster boys of these do-gooder campaigns.
i think conservation is ill thought and self serving. mother nature is far wiswer than us.
people forget humans are part of nature too, a concrete city is no different to a termite mound.